About Me

Monday, September 27, 2010

Rant: Anti-gun Moonbats

I rarely argue with anti-freedom Moonbats any more. For one thing logic is refuted with emotionally charged half-truths, unique anecdotes and so called 'common sense' that everyone should possess. For another I'm not good at shouting matches, and these arguments are most often settled by he who shouts the loudest, so to speak. That said, I stumbled on this post over at The Lawdog Files: OK, I'll Play and The Lawdog Files: Goodness which is Lawdog's response to Common Gunsense: Where There Is An Open Mind. On a whim I decided to play. Here are my twenty answers:

1. Do you believe that criminals and domestic abusers should be able to buy guns without background checks?
Yes. Background checks have conclusively proven to be ineffective against anyone buying or obtaining a firearm. Note that criminals still carry guns when it amuses them to do so.

2. What is your proposal for keeping guns away from criminals, domestic abusers, terrorists and dangerously mentally ill people?
I refuse to infringe on the Constitutional rights of the majority to provide the government with one more law to oppress the rest of the population. Moreover, I see no need for any such plan.

3. Do you believe that a background check infringes on your constitutional right to "keep and bear arms"?
Yes. I used to think that the background check was a good idea. I've changed my mind about that, as the information collected and saved by the government is being used to oppress the rest of us.

4. Do you believe that I and people with whom I work intend to ban your guns?
Anyone who proposes this question or any question resembling this one is very likely to ban firearms.

5. If yes to #4, how do you think that could happen ( I mean the physical action)?
I believe that the government would perform a house to house search and confiscation operation based on information collected during the 'background check' which is supposed to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals, and which has not worked.

6. What do you think are the "second amendment remedies" that the tea party GOP candidate for Senate in Nevada( Sharron Angle) has proposed?
From what little I've read, Sharron Angle supports the Second Amendment the way that it was written. This is reason enough for me to support Sharron Angle.

7. Do you believe in the notion that if you don't like what someone is doing or saying, second amendment remedies should be applied?
It depends entirely on what the someone in question is doing.

8. Do you believe it is O.K. to call people with whom you disagree liars and demeaning names?
If a person is lying, doesn't that make him or her a liar? My own disagreement aside, if anyone is deliberately not telling the whole truth, aren't they a liar?

9. If yes to #8, would you do it in a public place to the person's face?
Yes, if the opportunity presented itself.

10. Do you believe that any gun law will take away your constitutional rights?
Yes, any and all gun laws do, in fact, take away or limit my constitutional right to bear arms.

11. Do you believe in current gun laws? Do you think they are being enforced? If not, explain.
I believe that current gun laws violate my constitutional rights. Yes, I believe that current gun laws are being enforced. I don't see that much explanation is necessary here - the United States government has many departments that enforce gun laws, not the least of which is the BATF.

12. Do you believe that all law-abiding citizens are careful with their guns and would never shoot anybody?
Yes, I believe that all law-abiding, gun owning citizens are careful with their firearms and would never shoot anyone without cause.

13. Do you believe that people who commit suicide with a gun should be included in the gun statistics?
Which statistics are you referring to?

14. Do you believe that accidental gun deaths should "count" in the total numbers?
Accidental deaths are recorded by the CDC. As to counting, as far as I know these deaths are counted correctly.

15. Do you believe that sometimes guns, in careless use or an accident, can shoot a bullet without the owner or holder of the gun pulling the trigger?
In the vast majority of cases the trigger must be pulled for the gun to fire. While it is possible for the gun to go off by being dropped or otherwise mishandled, it is extremely unlikely.

16. Do you believe that 30,000 gun deaths a year is too many?
I know that the 30,000 deaths you refer to include intentional self-harm and police shootings. No, I do not think that 30,000 is too many.

17. How will you help to prevent more shootings in this country?
I'm willing and able to teach anyone safe gun handling who is willing to learn, and I'll go out of my way to do so.

18. Do you believe the articles that I have posted about actual shootings or do you think I am making them up or that human interest stories about events that have happened should not count when I blog about gun injuries and deaths?
Not having read any, I have no idea.

19. There has been some discussion of the role of the ATF here. Do you believe the ATF wants your guns and wants to harass you personally? If so, provide examples ( some have written a few that need to be further examined).
I have had no direct contact with the ATF. The people who would like to confiscate and destroy my firearms generally fall into two categories: Certain law enforcement personnel, who believe that an unarmed populace is a safe populace, and politicians and their supporters who want to control the populace in one case and be controlled by government in the other.

20. Will you continue a reasonable discussion towards an end that might lead somewhere or is this an exercise in futility?
Given that you are not a legislator at any level, then this is largely an exercise in futility.

The word 'reasonable' is a relative concept. What is reasonable to you is completely unreasonable to me, and at the same time might be something worth talking about to someone else. That being the case, consider the first amendment of the bill of rights. Obviously the 1A recognizes your right to free speech, but suppose the government doesn't like your speech, or that of your peers. The government could pass a law shutting you down (your blog is now history and you are officially gagged). Your solution to this untenable situation is one of the following:

Shut up wait for someone else to fix the problem

Continue to rant and get a midnight visit from a SWAT team who will serve a felony arrest warrant, throw you into jail and confiscate your computer and equipment. Your house and possessions will take a beating in the process, and it's likely your dog will be shot to death in front of your children.

Try voting someone else into office who promises to repeal this law, but who will likely suffer a case of selective amnesia once elected

If you have the money or you can raise it, take the law into court as being unconstitutional, then watch as the judge rules against you. Continue appealing until the money runs out or until the USSC refuses to hear the case.

Meantime you are not writing nor are you publishing what you write. See how this works? Even if you win at court, you have still been prevented from exercising a constitutional right that you truly believe you have for a significant period of time.

At the end of the tunnel, the USSC (or any other court) is extremely unlikely to rule as you would like, since in your own view you should be allowed to write and publish as you see fit - free speech. The court is much more likely to rule in favor of the government, and the best you can hope for is the compromise you don't want, such as some form of restricted speech. And, even if every single court that has jurisdiction in your case ruled in your favor and agreed with your position completely, the politicians who wrote and passed the Draconian law that restricted your speech are still in office and are not punished or even slightly discomfited. These fine fellows will simply rewrite the offensive law and pass it again.